by the PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM

BY ALL accounts the freest democracy in Southeast Asia, the Philippines, ironically, has become less and less transparent in its budget and financial processes.

The situation makes it more difficult for citizens to hold the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo accountable for cases of abuse, misuse, and corruption of public funds.

While the Philippine government provides some information to give citizens “a somewhat comprehensive picture” of its revenue and expenditures plan for the upcoming year, “it is difficult to track spending, revenue collection and borrowing... and assess budget performance once the budget year is over,” says the Open Budget Survey 2008 that is scheduled to be launched in Bangkok this week.

The Survey is a comprehensive evaluation of budget transparency in 85 countries that was conducted by the Washington-based International Budget Partnership (IBP), in coordination with independent media and research agencies from as many nations.

The Philippine report authored by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) showed that the country ranked only No. 34, and scored 48 percent or three points less than its rating two years ago.

The Philippines was outdone by Indonesia (54 percent), but came ahead of Thailand (40 percent) and Malaysia (30 percent), in the Survey.

Writer-researchers Avigal M. Olarte and Ma. Gisela Ordones-Cascolan worked on the Philippine report for the PCIJ.

The Survey employed an Open Budget Index (OBI), a comparative measure of the accessibility and comprehensiveness of the eight key budget documents that international good practice says all governments should publish.

The OBI is based on responses to a subset of Survey questions. The average score for the OBI 2008 is 39 out of a possible 100. This indicates that, on average, countries surveyed provide minimal information on their central government’s budget and financial activities.

For sure, the Philippines cannot boast of a stellar showing. The Survey notes that while the Philippine government's yearend report allows some comparisons “between what was budgeted and what was actually spent and collected,” it fails to offer a detailed explanation of the differences.

And although reports of the Commission on Audit (COA) are made public — if often beyond lawful deadlines for many public agencies — there is negligible detailed information on how and whether audit recommendations are successfully implemented by agencies.

The Survey also points out that while COA may be a constitutional commission, its independence is “somewhat limited” by the appointive powers of the president, and the lack of funds and resources.

Yet another drawback that prevents optimal budget transparency in the Philippines is the fact that the country has not passed an Access to Information law, even as the right to information has been enshrined in the Constitution and laws against graft and on ethical conduct of public officials.

Bad as all these may sound, the Open Budget Survey 2008 finds that the state of budget transparency in other parts of the world to be worse. Indeed, it says, the global situation is deplorable.

The Survey says that setups in many of the countries it scrutinized encourage inappropriate, wasteful, and corrupt spending and — because they shut the public out of decision-making — reduce the legitimacy and impact of anti-poverty initiatives.

Yet all is not lost. According to the Survey, a number of countries have significantly improved their performance over the past two years. It also shows that many more governments could quickly improve budget transparency at low cost by making publicly available the budget information that they already produce for their donors or internal use.